C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS KE DR I CK

SL AU GH TE R, Ap pe lla nt,
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 06 -0 02 91 -C R

Appea l from the 292nd J udicial District Court of Da lla s Co un ty , T e xas (TC# F- 06-00894-V)

O P I N I O N Th is i s an a

pp e a l of a c a pit a l murd e r c on vic tio n. Ap pe lla nt a rgue s th a t th e e vid e nc e is fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

the c on vic tio n, tha

t an im pli e d f ind inga g a ins t th e se lf

-d e fe ns e issue is so contrary

to the overwhelming w eig ht of the evide nce a s to be clea rly wrongand unjust, and that the trial cour t erre d in admitting hea

rsay statements. Appellant wa s g iven the mandatory

life sentenc e. SeeT EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 12 .3 1 ( Ve rn on 20 03 ). We a ff

ir m. Early Christmas day

in 2004, J amie Jackson died from multiple g unshot wounds from an
a uto matic we a

po n. Ke dr ic k Sl a

ug hte r w a s c ha

rg e d w ithc a

pit a l murd e r f

or sh oo tin g Jami e J ackson f or the promise of

remune ration. At trial, Shreka Chambers testified a s to events leadingup to and af ter the shooting
. Shr e ka ’s bo y fr ie nd

and fathe r o f h e r c hil d, Cha

rl e s V an Z andt or

“ Cha d, ” tol d h e r t

hat hi s b e st friend CD, a

drugdeale r, aske d him to find someone to kill M r. Jackson beca use he ha d “shorted [him ] ha lf a big ,” me anin g ro bb e d h im o f s ome dr ug s. CD wo uld

pa y wh oe ve r k ill e d h im $15,000. The ne x t time she hear d any thing a bout the shooting wa s about a month befor e at he r-2-

home while Chad a

nd her c ousins, Kedrick a nd Tim were talking a

bout it. C had told Kedr ick that CD was looking for someone to “find” somebody . Kedr ick said he w ould do it because he
ne e de d th e mon e y

fo r C hr istma s. Cha d th e n to ld T im a nd Ke dr ic k th a t th e y

wo uld be pa id $15,000 to ge t Mr. J ackson. K edric k and Tim understood that Chad wa s talking a bout killi ng Mr. J ackson. On Dec ember

24, 2004, Ms. Chambers wa s at her house with her sister, he r sister’s boy friend, Cha d, and Ke drick’s g irlfriend, Cry stal Wi lliams. Kedrick a nd Tim showed up around te n or ele ven p.m. They arr ived in a burgundy

van owne d by

D, Ms. Chambers’ Aunt Paulette’s boy friend. T hey wer e ther e to pick up Chad. Chad f ollowed the two in his own ca r. Chad retur

ned some time af

ter midnig ht. Chad told her he ha d g otten lost. Around one or two a.m., Appellant a

nd Tim returne d to the house. They bang ed on the door

to ge t a hold of Chad. Cha d w e nt w iththe m to the liv ingro om. Ms. Cha mbe rs we nt t o th e liv ingro om, and sa w b oth Appellant and T im with guns. Tim had a bla ck handgun, and Ke drick ha d a long er gun with a clip hang ing f

rom the bottom of it. Ms. C hamber s identified the ty pe of gun Kedr ick was holding that nig ht in a photogr aph shown by the State. Ms. Chambers he ard A ppellant tell Chad to call CD for his money

beca use he ha d “just killed that nigg er.” The thre e hea rd Ms. Chambers and Ms. Will iams eave sdropping so they went outside of the home
. The ne x t time she hear d any thing a bout what happe ned that nig ht was the morningthe article about the shooting came out. Paulette came over to Ms. Chamber s apar tment with the
ar t i cl e b ec au s e h er

b o y fr i en d ’s v an wa s i ni t . P au l et t e s ai d th at s h e w as n o tgo i n g t o l et h i mgo do wn fo r what ha d h a

pp e ne d. Pa

ule tte tol d K e dr ic k, he r s on , to g e t r id o f t he va n. On c ro ssexamination, Ms. C hamber s admitted to not giving all of the fa cts to the detec tive who-3-

interviewe d her r eg ardingthe shooting, a nd in fac t ga

ve ver y littl e of the information she testified to at tr ia l. Tarlisa K ing te stified about the ca r ride where Mr. J ackson w as shot. Mr. J ackson pic ked up Ms. King a

nd her c hild from a fr iend’s house to take them home. Duringthis trip, they made
a c ou ple of sto ps so that Mr . Jac ks on c ou ld c omp le te so me dr

ugde a ls. Up on

arr ivi nga t th e ir second stop, Mr. Jackson woke Ms. Kingtelling he r that they wer e beingfollowed by

a van. They left, and turne d in front of the va n causingit to st op. The va n turned a round and c ontinued to follow them. Mr. J ackson c ould not find his phone, so they heade d back towa

rds their sec ond stop. During this ti me, they lost sight of the va

n, and Mr. Jackson found his phone. Af ter losing the van, they

went to Mr. Jackson’s baby ’s mother’s house . Mr. J ackson e ntere d the home, and Ms. King notice d the van pa ss by ag ain. She told Mr. J ackson that she had see n the van a g ain. At this point , the van ha d been f ollowing them f

or twenty to thirty minutes not including the period in which the y

had lost it. Mr. J ackson pulled out his g un, and coc ked it. When they pulled out of the apa

rtment complex, Mr. J ackson sa w the van pa

rked to the side. T hey

left the complex, but M r. Jackson wanted to see who was f ollowing them. The y

turned a round, and he stopped his car

in front of the va

n. Mr. J ackson yelled at them “ who ar e y ’all? Show y ’all fa ce, I ’m about to bust.” He ha d his gun in his hand while doingthis. “I ’m about to bust” means I ’m g oing to shoot. Ms. King convince d him to leave, but he turne d around a g ain, and a g ain y elled at them as to who they

wer e. The re w as no re sponse from the va n. They leave , and Mr. Jackson turns around yet ag ain. The va n turns on and pulls out, but stops on the stree t fac ing the m. The
va n th e n b e g ins to a dv anc e , a nd Mr . Jac ks on

sta rt s h e a din g tow ard s th e va n. Mr . Jac ks on

tol d Ms. King to g et down, and pushe d her to the f loor of the c ar. Immediately , she hea rd shots fired.-4-

Ms. King c ould not tell whether Mr. Jackson fire d his gun. The ir ca r then jumped the c urb, and ran into a tre e. Mr. Jackson had be en shot, and wa s not responding . Ms. King pr ovided the police with a de scription of the va n and its license plate number. In her state ment to the police, she said Mr. Jackson also wa ived his g un at the van, while saying “ Come on, come on, c ome on.” Ms. Shelly

Ransom testified that on the nig ht of the shooting, she rec eived c alls from b o t hM r . J a c k s o nan d

M s . K i n g . M r . J a c k s o nt o l d M s . R an s o mth a th e w a s b e i n g f o l l o w e d b y a red a nd white van. He seeme d nervous a nd scar ed. Ms. Kingdescr ibed to Ms. Ransom how they
wer e beingfollowed by

the van, a

nd that they

lost it , but it found them ag ain. Ms. Tishida J oshua testified that she r ece ived a phone call fr om Paulette inquiring a bout her son. Paulette a sked her if Appellant ha d any

money . She said to tell her son that she kne w something he had done, a nd if she did not g et her

money , then she wa s g oing to turn him in. Two inmates who we re he ld in the same tank a s Appellant testified. Mr. Simon Ramos hear d Appellant boast a

bout his pending c harg es in a ne wspape r ar ticle. Appellant told them that
on e da y the y we re dr ivi ngaro un d, and saw s ome on e wh o h a d s tol e n s ome dr ug s f ro m th e m. H is friends e ncoura g ed him to go g et him, and he g ot out of the van with an A K, and star ted sh oo tin g . M r. Da

vid Ric hie te sti fi e d th a t he did no t he ar A

pp e lla nt b ra g g ingor

ta lki nga bo ut h is char g es. He stated that he a nd Mr. Ramos wer e re adingan ar ticle, and he ard the office r say Appellant’s name, and r ealized it was him whom they wer e re adingabout in the newspa per. Ms. Cry stal Wi lliams, Appellant’s g irlfriend, te stified for the de fense . She never hear d Cha d, Ti m, a

nd Ke dr ic k ta lki nga

bo ut m on e y

fo r k ill ingso me on e or

ne e din g to f

ind so me on e to do the job. The morningof Christmas Eve they wer e at Ms. Chamber s house, but they left to her g randmother ’s house. Ke drick wa s with her, but he lef t at one point during the nig ht. They wer e-5-

not at Ms. Chambers’ house the nig ht of Christmas Eve. He r eturne d, and they went to a pa

rty at her mother ’s house, a

nd stay ed the nig ht there. The incident, wher e Appe llant and Tim showed up a t Sh re ka ’s ho us e wi th gun s sa yingthe y kil le d s ome on e , n e ve r o c c ur re d a c c or din g to Ms. Willi ams. Heather Thomas, a

firea rm and toolmark e x aminer, te stified she examined five bullet casing s found at the sc ene. T hese ty pes of bullets ar e commonly fired by AK-47 ty

pe rifle s. The AK-47 ha s a bana

na-sha ped clip. Ly

nn Salzberg er, a

medical e x aminer, te stified that Mr . Jac ks on ’s c a

us e of de a th w a s mu lti ple g un sh ot w ound s. I n Appellant’s f

irst two issues, he raise s only a fa ctual suff

iciency challeng e to the
e vid e nc e , th e re fo re our f

a c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y ana ly sis pr e sume s th a t th e e vid e nc e is l e g a lly sufficie nt. Se e Cle wis v . S tate , 922 S.W .2d 126, 134 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). I n revie wing the fac tual sufficie ncy

of the e vidence , we must deter mine whether

consideringall the evidenc e in a neutra l light, the fa ct finder was rationally

justified in finding guilt bey ond a re asonable doubt. Zun iga v . S

tate , 144 S.W .3d 477, 484 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004), overruled on othe r grounds by W ats on v . S tate , 2 04 S.W. 3d

40 4 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ); se e als o Cl e wis , 922 S.W .2d at 129. Ev ide nc e is f

a c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt i f i t is so we ak th a t it wo uld be c le arl y

wr on g and

manif e stl y unjust to allow the verdict to stand, or the f inding of g uilt is ag ainst the g reat weig ht and preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. J oh ns on v . S

tate , 23 S.W .3d 1, 7 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). Our evaluation should not intrude upon the fa ct finder ’s role a s the sole judg e of the weig ht and
cre dibilit y

g iven to any

witness’s testimony
. Cai n v . S tate , 958 S.W .2d 404, 407 (Tex.Crim.App. 19 97 ). Th e a

pp e llate c ourt

may su bs tit ute its jud g me nt f

or the jur y ’s on the qu e sti on

of wi tne ss
cre dibilit y

and we ight of

evidenc e dete rminations, “albeit to a ve ry limit ed degree .” See-6-

Ma rsh all v . S tate , 210 S.W .3d 618, 625 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006). An opinion addressingfac tual
su ff ic ie nc y mus t in c lud e a

dis c us sio n o f t

he mos t im

po rt ant a nd re le va nt e vid e nc e tha

t su pp or ts the appe llant’s complaint on appea l. Sim s v . S tate , 99 S.W .3d 600, 603 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). We will not s et aside a

judgme nt unless the evidenc e supportingthe ver dict is so weak a s to be clea rly wrongand manife stly

unjust. Zuniga , 144 S.W .3d at 481. A cle arly wrongand
manif e stl y un jus t ve rd ic t oc c ur s w he re the jur y ’s fi nd ingsh oc ks the c on sc ie nc e or c le arl y demonstrates bia s. Id . In a fa c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y ana ly sis , th e e xiste nc e of a lte rn a tiv e re a so na

ble hy potheses ra ised by

the re cord ma

y be conside red, but they

are not determinative. W ilson v. Sta te , 7 S.W .3d 136, 141 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). When a defe ndant identifies an a lternative
rea sonable hy

pothesis raised by

the evidenc e, the standa

rd of r eview r emains the same , and a verdic t may

be over turned only

if it is so contrary

to the overwhelming w eig ht of the evide nce a s to be clea rly wrongand unjust. Cle wis , 922 S.W .2d at 129. I n I ssue One, A

ppellant ar g ues that the e vidence is factua lly insufficient to support the capital murde r convic tion. Specifically , Appellant ar g ues the State fa iled to prove Appe llant was the shooter or

criminally

responsible for

the murder . A per son commits capital murder if the person c ommits murder de fined unde r Section 19.02(b) (1), a nd the per son commits the murder for r emuner ation or the promise of remune ration or e mploy s another to c ommit t he murde r for
remune ration or the pr omise of re muneration. T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 19.03(a) (3)( Ver non Supp. 2008). Murder is de fined a s intentionally or knowing ly

causingthe death of an individual. T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 19.02(b)( 1)(Ve rnon 2003). Shre ka Chamber s testified that she wa s told by her boy friend, Cha d, that CD was looking for someone to kill M r. Jackson beca use he ha d sto le n s ome dr

ug s f ro m hi m. A t a

late r d a te , M s. Cha

mbe rs he ard

Ap pe lla nt a nd Ti m a g re e to-7-

kill Mr. J ackson f

or $15,000. On Christmas Eve, Appe llant and Tim came to her house in he r Aunt Paulette’s burgundy van to g et Chad. They

returne d later that night holding g uns, and stated that they

had killed him and wante d their money from CD. Ms. Chambers’ identified the ty pe of gun Appellant wa s holding by its elongated clip. Ms. King testified that Mr. Jackson y elled at the va

n, showed his g un, and said he was a bout to shoot. Appellant argues that Ms. Chambers’ testimony is insufficient bec ause it is in direct c onflict with testimony from Ms. Wi lliams. Ms. W illiams t estified that she did not hea r any conver sations about killing someone for

money , that they

wer e not at Ms. Chamber’ s house on Christmas Eve, and A ppellant
never came back sa

ying the y had killed someone a

nd wanted the ir money . Appellant also a rgues that her c redibility

must be viewed in the lig ht that she stated it was Christmas morning when he r Aunt P a ule tte c ame ov e r a

ng ry a bo ut t he ne ws pa

pe r a rt ic le wi th h e r f

ianc e e ’s va

n im pli c a te d in the sh oo tin g , w hic h w ou ld b e pr a c tic a lly imp os sib le g ive n th e tim e of the sh oo tin g and

the tim e neede d to print an article . Howeve r, she a lso testified that Paulette came over the morning the newspa per a rticle c ame out, althoug h on cross-e x amination she said it was Christmas morning
. Appellant points out that her testimony at trial included f

acts that we re not g iven in her inter view with the detec tives. Paulette told Appellant to g et rid of the va n. Appellant ar g ues that no witness testified he wa s an occ upant of the va n or that he w as the shooter . There was no
e vid e nc e that he wa s e ve r i n p os se ssi on of a AK -t y pe ri fl e . App e lla

nt a rgue s th a t Mr . Ra

mos ’ testimony of Appe llant brag g ing a

bout shooting Mr. Jackson is not credible. Mr . Ramos testified that Appellant’s story

was that he g ot out of the van a nd started shooting while Ms. King stated the shots came f

rom inside the van. Also, Mr. Richie’ s testimony contra dicted Mr. Ramos testimony stating that no conver sation took place. Ms. Joshua testified that Appellant’s mother,-8-

Paulette, ca lled her a sking a bout her son, and stated that she kne w something he did, and if she did not ge t some money

she would turn him in. Appellant ar g ues that the e vidence raised the
rea sonable a lternative hy

pothesis that Ms. Chambers false ly acc used Appe llant to protect Chad, the father of he r child. The jury could have found Ms. Chambers to be mor e cr edible than Ms. Willi ams, and take n h e r s tate me nts a s th e tr ue a c c ount o f what oc c ur re d. Ms. Cha

mbe rs ’ t e sti mony

c le arl y sh ow e d Ch a d’ s invo lve me nt w iththe sh oo tin g of Mr . Jac ks on . A lso , App e lla nt i s Ms. Chambers’ c ousin, which wea kens the a rgument that she would wa nt to pin the murder on Ap pe lla nt t o p ro te c t Ch a d. Th e y

c ou ld a lso have c ho se n to be lie ve Mr . Ra mos ov e r M r. Ritc hie as to the conve rsations that took place in jail. After a neutra l reviewof the e vidence , we hold the verdic t is neither clea

rly wrongand manife stly

unjust, nor is the conflicting evidenc e ag ainst the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the evidenc e. Appe llant’s I ssue One is ove rruled. When an appe llant challeng es the fa ctual suff iciency of the e vidence supporting the reje ction of a c laim of self-de fense , we view all the evidenc e in a ne utral lig ht and ask whe ther the State ’s e vid e nc e take n a lon e is t oo we ak to su pp or t th e fi nd ingand

wh e the r t he pr oo f o f guil t, althoug h adequate if take n alone, is ag ainst the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the evidenc e. Zul ian i v . S

tate , 97 S.W .3d 589, 595 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). I n conductingthis review, we bear i nm i n d t h at t h e f ac tfi n d er m ay dra w r ea s o n ab l e i n fe re n ce s fr o mth e e v i d en ce , i s th e s o l e j u d ge of the we ig ht o f t

he e vid e nc e and

c re dib ili ty

of the wi tne sse s, and

may a c c e pt o r r e

je c t any or a ll of the e vidence produce d by the par ties. Swe ar inge n v . S

tate , 101 S.W .3d 89, 97 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). We will rever se only when we can sa

y with some objective ba sis in the recor d, that the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the evidenc e contr adicts the fa ct finder ’s ver dict. W atson ,-9-

204 S.W .3d at 417. A per son is ge nera lly justified in using dea dly

forc e ag ainst another if

he
rea sonably

believes de adly

forc e wa s nece ssary

to protect himself a g ainst the other’ s use or
a tte mpt e d u se of

un lawf ull y de a dly fo rc e and a re a so na ble pe rs on

in t he a c tor ’s sit

uatio n w ou ld not have r etre ated. T EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . §§ 9.31(a) , 9.32(a) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). The se lfdefe nse evide nce is that Mr. Jackson y elled at the va n and said he was a

bout to shoot. However, afte r makingthat statement, he dr ove off . Mr. J ackson turne d around when he notice d the van pull up to the ex it of the apa rtment complex. The two car s beg an to trave l towards ea ch other slo wl y . T he se lf

-d e fe ns e the or

y wo uld have be e n s tr on g e r i mme diate ly a ft e r M r. Jac ks on

ha d h is g un visible, and was y elling that he was g oing to shoot. Appe llant argues there was no e vidence that th e va

n d id a ny thi ngto p ro vo ke the c on fr on tatio n, wh ic h w ou ld c a us e it t o lo se its ri g ht t o
se lf -d e fe ns e . H ow e ve r, so me tim e pa sse d s inc e the thr e a t w a s ma de , a nd the n th e va

n b e g an to
a dv anc e tow ard s th e c ar. Al so , th e va n h a d b e e n f

oll ow ingMr . Jac ks on ’s c ar f or thi rt y to f or ty minutes, and Appellant ha d enter ed into a conspira cy to murder Mr. Jackson. We find the evidenc e is neither too we ak to support the jury ’s finding , nor is the evidenc e so contra ry to the
overwhelming w eig ht of the evide nce a s to be clea rly wrongand unjust. Appellant’s I ssue Two is overrule d. I n I ssues Thre e and F our, Appe llant argues that the trial c ourt err ed in admitting he arsa y statements offe red by

the State. An out-of- court stateme nt offer ed for the truth of the matter
asser ted is hear say

and g ener ally

inadmissible. T EX .R.E V ID . 801(d). The re a re ma ny exceptions to t he g e ne ra l r

ule that he ars ay

is i na dmi ssi ble , o ne of

wh ic h s tate s: A statement whic h was at the time of its making so fa r contra ry to the decla

rant’s pe c un iary or pr op ri e tary

int e re st, or

so fa r t e nd e d to su

bje c t th e de c lara

nt t o c ivi l or cr iminal liabili ty

or to rende r invalid a c laim by the dec lara

nt ag ainst another,-10-

or to m ake the de c lara

nt a n o bje c t of

hatr e d, ri dic ule , o r d isg ra c e , th a t a re a so na ble person in dec lara

nt’s position would not have ma de the state ment unless believing it t o b e tr ue . In c ri min a l c a se s, a

state me nt t e nd ingto e xpos e the de c lara nt t o c ri min a l li a

bil ity is n ot a dmi ssi ble un le ss c or ro bo ratin g c ir c ums tanc e s c le arl y ind ic a te the tr

us tw or thi ne ss o f t

he state me nt. Tex.R.Evi d. 803(24). Whether a state ment is admissibl e as a statement ag ainst interest re quires a two- step analy sis. Bi ng

ha m v . S tate , 9 87 S.W. 2d

54 , 5 7 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ). Th e tr ia l c ourt fi rs t deter mines whether

the statement tends to expose the dec lara nt to criminal liabilit y . Id . The court then looks to the cor roborating e vidence to see if it clea rly indicates the trustwor

thiness of the statement. Id . I n evaluating the tr ustworthiness of the stateme nt, the courts should consider the following fac tors: whether the g uilt of the decla

rant is consistent with the g uilt of the defe ndant; whether

the dec lara

nt was so situated that he mig ht have c ommitt ed the c rime; the timing of the de clar ation; the spontaneity of the de clar ation; the relationship between the decla rant a nd the par ty to whom the statement is made; and the exis tence of indepe ndent
corr oborative f

acts. De wbe rry

v . S tate , 4 S.W .3d 735, 751 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). When the State offe rs the stateme nt to inculpate the def endant, the f

irst two fac tors are not releva nt. W oods
v . S tate , 152 S.W .3d 105, 112 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004). The trial c ourt’s dec ision to admit or
e xclu de a state me nt a g a ins t in te re st i s r e vie we d und e r a n a bu se of dis c re tio n s tand ard . We wi ll uphold the trial court’ s decision unless it lies outside the “zone of re asonable disag ree ment.” Mo ntgom e ry

v . S tate , 810 S.W .2d 372, 390-91 (Te x .Crim.App. 1990)(op. on re h’g ). I n Appellant’s I ssue Thre e, he a rgues the trial c ourt err ed in admitting state ments made by Chad to his girlfr iend Ms. Chambers. The court he ard the evidenc e the State wa nted to prese nt
and argume nts outsi de the pr e se nc e of the jur y . M s. Cha

mbe rs state d th a t Ch a d w a s tr yingto-11-

h e l p o u tw i t ht h e s i tu a t i o na tt h e t i m e th e s t a t e m e n t s w e r e m a d e . In th e p r e s e n c e o f th e j ur y, Ms. Cha mbe rs te sti fi e d th a t Ch a d to ld h e r h is f ri e nd , CD , to ld h im t o f

ind so me on e to k ill Mr. J ackson f

or money . He told her

that CD would pay

whoeve r did it $15,000. I t is clear that the state me nts te nd

to e xpos e Cha d to c ri min a l li a bil ity . T he state me nts sh owthat he wa s a fa c ili tator of a c on sp ir a c y

to c omm it c a

pit a l murd e r. He wa s su

pp os e d to fi nd

so me on e to k ill Mr. J ackson on be half of CD. We must now deter mine whether

there are corr oborating circ umstances, whic h clea rly indicate the tr

ustworthiness of the stateme nt. The dec laration was
ma de mor e tha

n a month b e fo re the sh oo tin g , a nd a fe w d ay s b e fo re so lic iti ngAp pe lla nt a nd Ti m to t ake the job . T he state me nts we re ma de sp on tane ou sly in r e sp on se to q

ue sti on s f ro m hi s g ir lf ri e nd a bo ut what CD ha d w ante d to ta lk a bo ut. Cha d h a d n o r e a so n to lie to M s. Cha mbe rs , his girlf riend a nd mother of his child. A stateme nt is sufficiently trustworthy

for pur poses of Rule 803(24) whe n it is m ade to a relative. W

alte r v . S tate , 209 S.W .3d 722, 731 (Tex.App.-- Texarkana

2006, pet. g rante d). The c onversation occurr ed prior to the shooting . The independe nt, corrobor ating fac ts include a late r conve rsation Ms. Chambers he ard be tween Cha d, Appellant, and T im where Chad offe red the m the job, and they acc epted it. Ms. Chambers testified that Appellant a

nd Tim returne d to her a

partment holdingg uns, saying the y had killed him, and wanted the ir money . The va n identified in the shooting be long to Appe llant’s mother’s boy friend, which Ms. Chambers’ te stified Appellant wa s driving the night of the shooting. The re
was c onflicting testimony that Appellant bra g g ed about the shootingwhile in jail. We find the decision to admit the hea

rsay within the “zone of re asonable disag ree ment,” and thus the tria l court did not abuse its discre tion. Even if the cour t erre d in admitting the stateme nts, we find the
e rr or to b e ha rm le ss. Er

ro r i s h arm le ss, if

a ft e r e xami nin g the re c or d a s a wh ole , th e a

pp e llate-12-

c o u rti s r e a s o n a

b l y a s s u r e d

t h e e r r o r e i th e r d i d n o ti n f l u e n c e th e j ur

y’ s d e c i s i o no r

h a d o n l y a slight ef fec t. Ga rc ia v . S

tate , 1 26 S.W. 3d

92 1, 92 7 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 20 04 ). Ina dmi ssi ble
e vid e nc e c an b e re nd e re d h arm le ss i f o the r e vid e nc e a t tr ia l is a dmi tte d, and it p ro ve s th e same fac t that the inadmissible evidence soug ht to prove. Se e An de rso n v . S tate , 717 S.W .2d 622, 628 (T e x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 86 ); Cou c hm an v . S tate , 3 S.W .3d 155, 160-61 (Te x .App.--F ort Worth 1999, pet. re f’d) . Appellant only challeng es the c onversation between Cha d and Ms. Chambers. The same infor

mation was later

admitted when Ms. Chamber s testified about the c onversation betwee n Chad, Appellant, a nd Tim. Appellant’s I ssue Thre e is overr uled. I n I ssue Four , Appellant ar g ues the trial c ourt err ed in admitting state ments made by Paulette, Appellant’ s mother, to Tishida J oshua. Ms. J oshua testified that she r ece ived a phone call fr om Paulette inquiring whether Appellant had a

ny money . Paulette then stated she knew he had some money , and that if he went over or ca lled to let him know that she knew somethinghe had done, a

nd if she did not g et her

money , she would turn him in. Paulette’s statement doe s not tend to expose her to cr iminal liabili ty . I t is a rather vague stateme nt that with some stretches could be se en as attempted extorti on, but it would be difficult, if not impossi ble, to find her criminally

liable for attempted theft base d on those comments. SeeT EX .P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 31.02 (Ve rnon 2003) a

nd § 31.03 (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). The c omments were made a fter the shooting. The comments wer e spontane ous since Paulette c ontacted Ms. Joshua for no re ason oth e r t ha n to tr y to f ind Ap pe lla nt, so sh e c ou ld g e t mo ne y fo r h e r s ile nc e . T he te sti mony c ame from the g irlfriend of

Tim, who was implicated in the shooting of Mr. Jackson. The
corr oboratingfac ts showing the tr ustworthiness of this statement are not sufficient. Paulette’ s boy friend’ s van wa s being used by Appellant and ide ntified in the shooting. She ha d shown up-13-

wi th a ne ws pa pe r a rt ic le a bo ut t he sh oo tin g , a

nd tol d App e lla

nt t o g e t r id o f t

he va n. We h old the trial cour

t erre d in admitting the stateme nts made by Paulette to Ms. J oshua. While it was
err or to admit the statements, we find any err or to be ha

rmless. The r ecor d shows other
s t at em en t s b y

P au l et t e i mp l yi n g Ap p el l an t ’s i n v o l v em en ti nth e m urd er we re ad m i t t edth ro u gh Ms. Chambers’ testimony . She told him t o g et rid of the va n, and she w as not g oing to let he r boy friend g o down for what had ha ppen. The re w as other e vidence showing that Appellant had ag ree d to kill M r. Jackson for money . There was testimony he re turned to Ms. Chambers apar tment stating that he had killed him, and wante d his money . There was testimony from Mr. Ramos that he wa s boasting a bout the shooting while in jail. Ther e wa s sufficient e vidence showing the admission of Paulette’s stateme nt would have ha d but a slight e ffe ct on the jury ’s decision. We overr

ule Appellant’ s I ssue Four
. Havingoverr

uled all of Appe llant’s issues on appea l, we af firm his conviction.

October 16, 2008 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l u r e , a n d C ar r , JJ. (Do Not Publish)